Ruins of Ancient City Discovered in Australian Desert

This may be a hoax but the Native Australian people may have lived there for up to 60.000 years and there is evidence of vast trade network's
stretching right across the continent, just because these people did not build collumned palaces does not mean there civilization was primitive, they
survived longer than any other culture in the world with little change over that time period so they were successful and worthy of a place in any
history, there are also claims on this site that there is a pre european chinese town that was ignored by modern historians and let's also remember
the dutch became stranded and may have intermarried with the native people over a hundred years before the british founded there colony there.

The aboriginal Australians have my deepest respect and are a wonderful ancient people with a fantastic culture unlike anything since 10000 bc
elsewhere in the world though they varied in there morals and DIET form tribe to tribe as the unfortunate chinese coolies could attest to, those that
were not eaten that is.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Does it not make anyone wonder why the established archaeologists always portray Australia of being populated from the Pacific and latterly from
Europe. Yet what sticks out like a sore thumb is the virtually small island hops through Indonesia or New Guinea which is totally ignored. So they say
the aborigines spread from South America through the Pacific islands, across vast oceanic distances. The same for the Europeans, crossing the Indian
ocean or the Pacific. Yet from the north of Australia there is virtually a land bridge.

?????? Australians from south America, that's a
new one. That "ignored " island hopping through Indonesia, is the accepted model for human dispersion into Australia and Tasmania.
No seriously considered austrailians to have come from south America.

Yea its hilarious. The "sea peoples" of the South pacific, who were great navigators apparently, were hopping all over the vast ocean mass......but
those Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Vikings and Celts just moped along the coastlinee looking out for sea monsters until about 1492 or some sh*t.

There is a tribe out on one of those little Islands out there in the vast blue that has a collection of coins and other artifacts sea traders left
with them over the years. One is a rather large coin from Portugal from 1580s aprox left by those fine Seafaring folk. That's a few decades before
the Dutch traditionally.

The aborigines traded with the Chinese for many, many years before any Europeans came to the land.

While the picture of this desert city aren't from Australia, it does raise curiousity about the heavily Euro-centric beliefs about indigenous people
across the world and their contact with other peoples that weren't European.

Maybe it upsets people views so much that they still can't reconcile that whitey isn't the be-all-and-end-all of civilization. What other reason
exists for denial of the undeniable?

Well I don't know who you are talking about. The racial uptight folks in the defusionary world, the study of cross cultural contact, are not whites.
One of the most famous, a white guy, built native boats to show that non whites could cross the ocean. Most of the exposure and I mean almost all of
it, that other than whites traveled around the world has been done by whites.

I think you do actually know what I mean. There is still a camp of people who think white is the best ever thing, ever - I just sometimes can't
properly express myself. I probably haven't had enough coffee yet, to be able to do that!

We're living in a hangover of colonialism and often our personal beliefs are constructed from an older style history, without realising it.

I'm very conservative and you could even call me racist. On this, though, I'm a realist in that denying that indigenous people were definitely in
contact with other people from other parts of the world, mostly for trade purposes, is just wrong.

I'm amazed that some still try to push the view that Europeans discovered everywhere.

I really don't hear any of that anywhere these days. Certainly not among folks that study the topic. For example it has been long thought and
investigated that Africans sailed around the world here and there. One of the first things I learned about studying cross cultural contact by sea was
the ancient African getting around like in New Guinea. And Chinese. I have a good deal of material about Chinese exploration.

By the same measure I don't believe Marco Polo was the first European to venture into China or that Columbus was the first European in the Americas.

I do have a problem, from a historical prospective, with all the white bashing when it comes to evidence that white folks have been on the open sea
going back into BC millennium. There is a good deal of what looks like reverse racism in the denial of that.

Mmmm. It doesn't surprise me. If you got the impression that I am at all apologetic for being white, allow me to put that to rest. I just like to
include everything in the discussion, because no matter how you look at it, much of the trouble these days can be attributed to the, "we know better
than these savage darkies" worldview.

I often have to bite my tongue when dealing with the lefty dumbasses that refuse to accept that, colonial hangover this may be, there is no longer any
excuse for people to blame what happened all those years ago and that we all have to pick ourselves up and move on.

The old ways of polite diplomacy don't seem to work and the discussion and debate must happen in public, be transparent so to expose those who both
are racist and accuse other of racism, and be candid and no-holds-barred.

The fear of being accused of racism and a false 'white guilt' is often what's holding back discussion on how to move past the old ways of the world
and opening up dialogue on historic pre-European contact of cultures like Australia and China, I find.

I never thought I'd be interested in the history of indigenous populations, pre-European discovery of them, but I'm finding myself sucked in by sheer
amazement of how these cultures traded and got along so seemingly well with one-another.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
This may be a hoax but the Native Australian people may have lived there for up to 60.000 years and there is evidence of vast trade network's
stretching right across the continent, just because these people did not build collumned palaces does not mean there civilization was primitive, they
survived longer than any other culture in the world with little change over that time period

The aborigines arrived in 3 major waves of migration, each one pushing the others further south. The further south they went there were different
plants and climates, even different animals. Since their culture relies heavily on the land, animals and their connection to it, it would be wrong to
assume their culture lasted unchanged.

Also, I dont know if you are familiar with Australia, it is about the size of the US. It is 3000 miles from one end to the other. The Dutch that got
stranded were in the SW corner, near Perth. There are aboriginals of that area that have blonde hair.

Well in america the natives always traded between themselves before the whites, but there was plenty of not getting along like everywhere else. Part
of the reverse Eurocentric, colonial centric thinking has been to ignore the fact that many of the tribes had long histories of hostility's between
then. Myth even emerges about some sort of la la land that existed here before whites came.

Just look at these weapons of war, my avatar, from the old copper age tribes here in america.

For some reason there is no way of staring your post or anyone else but thank you for this interesting and valid point, I am no expert on there
history and indeed only know what media has presented to me over time but still find them a very interesting people as well as lamenting some of the
injustices they have suffered, did you know that the british museum for instance had a stuffed aboriginal family on show until it was no longer
acceptable, being part maori (though I know nothing of that culture either and yes they are unrelated being a polynesian people with some possible
genetic legacy from the Moriouri 'probably wrong spelling' who they displaced on the islands or like most invaders did they marry the choice woman
of the people they conquered).
But anyway I digress, they are the oldest australian's and they do go back as much as 60.000 years which at least we know as well as trade good's
such as shells and beads made from corral have been found deep in the interior indicating a complex network of trade route's, I would say however
that as well know the fauna in particular the mega fauna as well as the climate have changed over that 60.000 years and as it was an isolated eco
system there ancestors are most likely the cause of most of those extinctions though though the same global event of 16000 to 10000 years ago also
played a significant part in these extinctions as this may have caused a local climate change.
One thing though the landscape shapes the people and the later people must have learned from the earlier people so there culture may have absorbed
rather than been displaced by the later immigrant's who most likely came from the neighbouring land's of New Guinea, indeed it is likely that
cultural exchange may have occured over prolonged period between these groups of people especially at times of lower sea level during the past several
ice ages as it may have exposed conveniant islands by which the journed could be shortened and made more practicle.

I won't get into sunken lands or continent's on this thread but find Zealandia fascinating and wonder if it was ever truly above water or is simply
submerged continental place that broke off during techtonic fragmentation of the supercontinent's and of course the only part of it still above water
being the New Zealand islands were likewise an isolated ecosystem with insects and birds being the dominant species, love the Haast eagle but would
not want to meet a live specimen.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.